Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 15, 9:00 pm, "bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
I was responding to your statement, "When my clock is slower than
yours but your clock is slower than mine ABSURD seems a better
description than APPROXIMATE."
Tom explained why that is the case and you did not seem to understand
what he was saying, so I tried to elaborate on what he said. If you
have a question state it.
No... Tom used the phrase"
"for an appropriate physical situation"
without further elaboration, he explained nothing.
There was a whole paragraph following that statment that any
reasonable person would consider to be further elaboration.
If it were a whole volume it would still be BS.
Reasonable people expect a light path mentioned if there
is one, rather than vague weasel-words about "measurement procedures"
or "for an appropriate physical situation".
And there
was a follow up post that attempted to further explain what you do not
understand. It is starting to look like you have chosen to not
understand. That would mean you have joined the ranks of the
cranks.
[your snip restored for your further consideration]
Tom is asking us to reject the principle of relativity.
Will we also have to accept the implications of Phlogiston
and Caloric and to prove we are not cranks?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
"The Dual Nature of Light as Reflected in the Nobel Archives"
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
Bruce- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- References:
- Mach's principle and aether
- From: Amine
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: Sue...
- Re: Mach's principle and aether
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Mach's principle and aether
- Prev by Date: Re: Circular motion in SR
- Next by Date: Re: Simultaneity by PeRi
- Previous by thread: Re: Mach's principle and aether
- Next by thread: Re: Mach's principle and aether
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|